Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/15338
Full metadata record
???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 謝銘洋(Ming-Yan Shieh) | |
dc.contributor.author | Jung-Mei Chu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 朱蓉美 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T17:33:01Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-07-17 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-07-07 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分 (一)、書籍 1.BenjaminJ.Hauptman、Kien T. Le(著),脱颖(譯)(2017),《美國專利申請撰寫及審查處理策略》,北京:知識產權出版社。 2.謝銘洋(2018),《智慧財產權法導論》,8版,台北:元照。 (二)、期刊論文 1.李素華(2014),〈智慧財產法院運作之觀察與檢討-以專利侵權訴訟為中心〉,《全國律師》,18卷10期,頁18-42。 2.莊智惠(2017),〈106年度臺美專利審查官交流計畫〉,頁32。 3.陳佳麟(2005),〈申請專利範圍之手段功能用語解釋及其侵害判斷〉,《科技法學評論》,2卷,頁158 (三)、網路文獻 1.天橋下說書人(2019),《美國專利申請救濟-Appeal以及Pre-Appeal》,載於: https://talkerunderbridge.blogspot.com/2019/01/appealpre-appeal.html。 2.World Intellectual Property Organization(2019),《世界知識產權指標:2018年專利、商標和工業品外觀設計申請量再創新高》,載於:https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/zh/articles/2019/article_0012.html。 3.TIPO年報,載於:https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-177-483190-adbf7-1.html。 4.吳碧慧(2019),《中國5G專利申請全球第一每年260億專利費能否減免?》,載於:https://tech.sina.com.cn/5g/i/2019-08-29/doc-ihytcern4378710.shtml。 二、英文部分 (一)、CASES 1.Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 2.AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 3.Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). 4.Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am. Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 5.Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 6.BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 7.BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co, Appeal No. 2019-1243 (Fed. Cir., April 8 2020) 8.Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. at 604. 9.Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018) 10.Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 11.Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 12.Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 13.Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980). 14.Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) 15.Electric Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 16.Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 17.Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLC 944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 18.Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1992) 19.GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018) 20.Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966) 21.In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 22.In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1242 (CCPA 1973). 23.In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298- 99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 24.In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 25.In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 1245 (CCPA 1978)The Federal Circuit Further 26.In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 27.In re Gates, 787 F. App'x 741 (Fed. Cir. 2019) 28.In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 29.In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 30.In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 31.In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) 32.In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 33.In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 34.In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 35.In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 36.Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 37.Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (941 F.3d 1133) (Fed. Cir. 2019). 38.McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, (Fed. Cir. 2016) 39.Metabolite Labs Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 40.PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 773 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed Cir. 2014) 41.Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) 42.Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell Co., 894 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 43.Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 44.Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 45.Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l, 859 F.3d 1014, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 46.Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 47.Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 48.Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 49.Voter Verified v. Premier Election Solutions (Fed. Cir. 2012) 50.Watts v. XI Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 51.Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 52.Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (二)、Periodical Materials 1.Brunner, J. (2014). Patent Prosecution as Dispute Resolution: A Negotiation Between Applicant and Examiner, 2014 J. DISP. RESOL. 7-8. 2.Cassi, L. Carayol, N. (2009). Who's Who in Patents. A Bayesian approach. Working Papers hal-00631750, HAL. 3.Chen, L. (2017). Do patent citations indicate knowledge linkage? The evidence from text similarities between patents and their citations. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 63-79. 4.Doran, P., Webster, E. (2019). Who influences USPTO patent examiners? World Patent Information, 56, 39-42. 5.Ebrahim, Tabrez. (2019). Automation Predictive Analytics in Patent Prosecution: USPTO Implication Policy. Georgia State University Law Review 35(4), 5. 6.Frakes, M. D., Wasserman, M. F. (2017). Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(3), 550-563. 7.Frakes, M. Wasserman, M. F. (2017). Does the U.S. Patent Trademark Office Grant Too Many Bad Patents?: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment. Stanford Law Review, 67. 8.Feng, J., Jaravel, X. (2020). Crafting Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for Patent Assertion Entities, Litigation, and Innovation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12(1), 140-181. 9.Farre‐Mensa, J., Hegde, D., Ljungqvist, A. (2019). What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”. The Journal of Finance, 75(2), 639-682. 10.Graham, S. J., Hegde, D. (2012). Do Inventors Value Secrecy in Patenting? Evidence from the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. SSRN Electronic Journal. 11.Graham, S. J., Marco, A. C., Miller, R. (2015). The USPTO patent examination research dataset: A window on the process of patent examination. Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business Research Paper No. WP, 43. 12.Lu, Q., Myers, A. F., Beliveau, S. (2017). USPTO Patent Prosecution Research Data: Unlocking Office Action Traits (November 20, 2017) (No. 2017-10). USPTO Economic Working Paper. 13.Lei, Z., Wright, B. D. (2017). Why weak patents? Testing the examiner ignorance hypothesis. Journal of Public Economics, 148, 43-56. 14.Lemley, M. A., Zyontz, S. (2020). Does Alice Target Patent Trolls?. Available at SSRN 3561252. 15.Marco, A. C., Sarnoff, J. D., Charles, A. W. (2019). Patent claims and patent scope. Research Policy, 48(9), 103790. 16.Seymore, S. B. (2013). The Presumption of Patentability, 97 MINN. L. REV. 990-995. 17.Shahid M., Ahmed A., Mushtaq M.F., Ullah S., Matiullah Akram U. (2020) Automatic Patents Classification Using Supervised Machine Learning. Recent Advances on Soft Computing and Data Mining. 297-307. 18.Trappey, A. J., Trappey, C. V., Wu, J., Wang, J. W. (2020). Intelligent compilation of patent summaries using machine learning and natural language processing techniques. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 43, 101027. 19.Wasserman, M. F. (2019). PROMOTING THE USEFUL ARTS: HOW CAN CONGRESS PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OFPOOR QUALITY PATENTS?. University of Texas School of law. 20.Yin, D., Motohashi, K., Dang, J. (2019). Large-scale name disambiguation of Chinese patent inventors (1985–2016). Scientometrics, 122(2), 765-790. 21.Yanagihori, K., Tsuda, K. (2015). Verification of Patent Document Similarity of Using Dictionary Data Extracted from Notification of Reasons for Refusal. 2015 IEEE 39th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference. (三)、Internet Resources 1.Dennis Crouch (Oct. 17, 2019) USPTO Eligibility Examination Practice. Retrieved from https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/10/eligibility-examination-practice.html ,(last visited March 29, 2020). 2.Dawsey Co., LPA(Oct., 2002), Obviousness and Secondary Considerations. Retrieved from https://www.invention-protection.com/obviousness-and-secondary-considerations/ , (last visited April 15, 2020). 3.David Manspeizer (Apr. 16, 2020) Federal Circuit Extends Potential Reach of Chemical Compound Structural Similarity Obviousness Law. Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-circuit-extends-potential-reach-chemical-compound-structural-similarity , (last visited April 15, 2020). 4.European Patent Office, European Patent Convention (EPC 1973). Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ar52.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 5.European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination 3. Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3.htm , (last visited March 29, 2020). 6.European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination 3.3.1. Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3_3_1.htm , (last visited March 29, 2020). 7.Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28283/examining-computer-implemented-functional-claim-limitations-for-compliance-with-35-usc-112 ,(last visited May 30, 2020). 8.Georgetown Law (Jan. 9, 2019), '2019 Report on the State of the Legal Market' Calls for Rebuilding the Law Firm Model. Retrieved from https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/rebuilding-the-law-firm-model-2019-report-on-the-state-of-the-legal-market/, (last visited March 29, 2020). 9.German Patent and Trade Mark Office, German Patent and Trade Mark Office more productive than ever before (Feb 28, 2020). Retrieved from https://www.dpma.de/english/services/public_relations/press_releases/20200228.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 10.IP5 Statistics Report 2017 Edition. Retrieved from https://www.fiveipoffices.org/statistics/statisticsreports/2017edition.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 11.James Cosgrove, Katrina Brundage (Jan.12, 2017) A Pre-Appeal Brief Conference is a Winning Strategy, Even if it Probably Won’t Lead to Allowance. Retrieved from https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/01/12/pre-appeal-brief-conference-winning-strategy/id=76897/#targetText=The%20USPTO's%20Pre%2DAppeal%20Brief,%20review%20of%20their%20Appeal%20brief , (last visited March 29, 2020). 12.Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman (Jan. 2017), Procrastination in the Workplace: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office, NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w22987 , (last visited March 29, 2020). 13.Matthew M. (Aug. 12, 2019) Final rejection: not the end. Retrieved from https://www.yospinlaw.com/2019/08/12/final-rejection , (last visited March 29, 2020). 14.Nick Transier (Apr. 13, 2020) A House Divided: Is the PTAB Ignoring the USPTO’s Section 101 Guidance? Retrieved from https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/04/13/house-divided-ptab-ignoring-usptos-section-101-guidance/id=120589/#.XpdAuyGutuA.linkedin , (last visited March 29, 2020). 15.Nick Dolm (Jan.15, 2019 ), 713% Growth: Legal Tech Set An Investment Record In 2018. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/valentinpivovarov/2019/01/15/legaltechinvestment2018/#579b295b7c2b, (last visited March 29, 2020). 16.Popular information. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB 2020,Theory of markets with asymmetric information. Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2001/popular-information/ , (last visited March 29, 2020). 17.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Open data and mobility. (2019, November 06). Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/open-data-and-mobility , (last visited March 29, 2020). 18.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2132, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2132.html ,(last visited March 29, 2020). 19.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf , (last visited March 29, 2020). 20.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf , (last visited March 29, 2020). 21.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 22.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016-memo.pdf , (last visited March 29, 2020). 23.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-08.2017]. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html#ch2100_d29a1b_13d41_124 , (last visited March 29, 2020). 24.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Berkheimer Memorandum. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF,(last visited March 29, 2020). 25.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2144.03. Retrieved from https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/e8r9/d0e210752.html ,(last visited March 29, 2020). 26.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Introduction. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019%20USPTO%20BM%20101-2019%20PEG.pdf ,(last visited March 29, 2020). 27.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO meets critical goals to reduce patent examination pendency. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/uspto_meets_critical_goals_to ,(last visited March 29, 2020). 28.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, 35 U.S.C. 6 Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Retrieved from https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-11.2013#/E9_R-11.2013/d0e301226.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 29.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTAB E2E Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-Appeal-board/Appeals , (last visited March 29, 2020). 30.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, 35 U.S.C. 134 Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Retrieved from https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-11.2013#/ , (last visited March 29, 2020). 31.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 1207 Examiner’s Answer [R-11.2013] 37 C.F.R. 41.39. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1207.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 32.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, PublicPair. Retrieved from https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair , (last visited March 29, 2020). 33.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Technology Centers Management. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/patent/contact-patents/patent-technology-centers-management , (last visited March 29, 2020). 34.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, First Office Action Estimator. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/statistics/first-office-action-estimator , (last visited March 29, 2020). 35.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 706.01 Contrasted With Objections [R-11.2013]. Retrieved from https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/current/d0e58202.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 36.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 706.07 Final Rejection [R-11.2013]. Retrieved from, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html#d0e68889 , (last visited March 29, 2020). 37.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 713 Interviews [R-07.2015]. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s713.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 38.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 609 Information Disclosure Statement [R-07.2015]. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s609.html, (last visited March 29, 2020). 39.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2272 After Final Practice [R-07.2015]. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2266.html, (last visited March 29, 2020). 40.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 706.07(H) REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE) PRACTICE. Retrieved from https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e70778.html, (last visited March 29, 2020). 41.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTAB Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-Appeal-board/statistics , (last visited March 29, 2020). 42.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 1204.02 Pre-Appeal Brief Review Request and Conference Pilot Program [R-08.2017]. Retrieved from https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/1204_02.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 43.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, MPEP 2181. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2181.html , (last visited April 15, 2020). 44.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Appeals and Pre-Appeals. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Appeals%20and%20PreAppeals%20Processes.pdf , (last visited March 29, 2020). 45.World Intellectual Property Organization, Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparisons. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/wipo_ipc_technology.pdf , (last visited March 29, 2020). 46.World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Technology Trends 2019 Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1055.pdf , (last visited March 29, 2020). 47.World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO IP Statistics Data Center. Retrieved from https://www3.wipo.int/ipstats/index.htm?tab=patent , (last visited March 29, 2020). 48.World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO PROOF. Retrieved from https://wipoproof.wipo.int/wdts/about-wipo-proof.xhtml , (last visited May 30, 2020). 49.World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Magazine (2019). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2019/04/article_0006.html , (last visited March 29, 2020). 50.World Intellectual Property Organization, Potentially pending applications at the top 20 offices 2018. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2019.pdf ,(last visited March 29, 2020). | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/15338 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究分析大量的公開資料,以深入了解美國專利審查過程的運行,文章安排如下: 第二章先對主要國家申請資料做一宏觀的介紹,並討論關於美國歷年審查委員核准/核駁原因趨勢。第三章則利用PTAB中的Appeal資料去探勘,研究被審查委員核駁的專利,是如何在PTAB中得到逆轉;觀察被引用的判決與技術分類的關聯性,並將最常被引用的判決所出現的特定句子摘錄出來,這些被摘錄出來的句子,就是PTAB 用來說理的部分,可做為反駁的基礎。第四章總結在PTAB的發現,並提供了一些結論性意見。在101審查方面,根據本文研究,2019 PEG 指南發布後,造成101條的駁回大幅減少48.5%,上訴後被核准的件數也增56%,但在PTAB 真正逆轉的案件僅增加5%。在101涉及的技術領域上,主要落在3600商業方法和2100軟體的部分,最重要的判決前三大是Alice、Mayo、Bilski。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study is data analysis of a mass amount of public information on patent examination, in order to deeply and broadly know how the patent prosecutions of the United States go through. The study is organized as follows: Chapter 2 makes a macro view using the IP5 materials, and discusses the trend of the reasons for granting or rejection of the patent examiners over the years based on public data of USPTO PAIR. Chapter 3 is based on patent appealing data of PTAB, realizing how the cases rejected in the patent application prosecution by the examiners are reversed in the opinions of the Board, extracting specific sentences from the most frequently cited cases and observing the relevance of cited cases and the art unit. Herein, the specific sentences extracted from the cited cases are used and relied on for the reasons to reverse the cases by PTAB. Chapter 4 summarizes the findings of PTAB, and provides some concluding observations. In terms of the 101 study, after the release of the 2019 PEG guidelines, it s ignificantly results a substantial reduction of 48.5% of the 101 rejections, and the number of approved items after appeal is also increased up to 56%, but the cases where PTAB really reversed is increased by only 5%. In the technical field involved in 101, it mainly falls on the part of 3600 business methods and 2100 software, herein the top three most important cases are Alice, Mayo and Bilski. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T17:33:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0107202013345100.pdf: 3379949 bytes, checksum: 22202066bd1248029a229d4b4d2fa30c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄 口試委員會審定書 ......i 誌謝 ......ii 中文摘要 ......iii 英文摘要 ......iv 第一章 緒論 ......1 第一節 研究動機及目的 ......1 第二節 研究範圍與方法 ......3 第三節 研究架構與限制 ......4 第二章 美國專利申請與審查實務資料研究 ......7 第一節 主要國家專利申請趨勢 ......11 第一項 主要國家發明專利申請量與核准率 ......11 第二項 主要國家發明專利申請技術領域 ......15 第三項 主要國家審查委員人力概況 ......18 第二節 美國專利審查資料概覽 ......20 第一項 美國專利申請與核准趨勢 ......20 第二項 審查過程中逐年核准率 ......23 第三項 審查過程中依不同技術領域之核准率 ......24 第三節 歷年審查委員核准/核駁原因趨勢 ......25 第一項 核准/核駁原因依年份統計 ......25 第二項 核准/核駁原因依審查委員統計 ......25 第三項 核准/核駁原因依技術領域統計 ......28 第四項 核准/核駁原因上訴後的翻轉率 ......28 第三章 PTAB 專利有效性之引用案例統計與反轉條件實證分析 ......30 第一節 第101條 專利適格性 (Patent Subject Matter Eligibility) ......35 第一項 專利標的適格性判決統計 ......41 一、 101 被PTAB 引用的判決前50 大 (1997-2020/02 ) ......41 二、 差異比較 (新出現大量開始引用的判決) ......43 三、 101 最常出現的字(2010-2020/02) ......43 第二項 各判決在不同技術領域中出現的頻率 ......45 一、 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) ......46 二、 Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct.1289, 1293 (2012) ......47 三、 Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ......48 四、 Electric Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54(Fed. Cir. 2016) ......49 五、 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir.2016) ......50 六、 Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) ......52 七、 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257(Fed. Cir. 2014) ......53 八、 Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) ......54 九、 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) ......55 十、 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......56 第三項 主要逆轉理由分析 ......57 一、 機器或轉換測試法不是唯一的判斷標準 ......57 二、 將抽象概念納入了實際應用 ......57 三、 是技術的改進而非抽象概念 ......59 四、 並不屬於法定例外 ......62 五、 不符合易於理解、經常性或常規(WURC)的證明 ......65 第四項 小結 ......67 第二節 第102條 新穎性(Novelty) ......68 第一項 新穎性前50大判決統計 ......69 一、 102 被PTAB引用的判決前50大 (1997-2020/02 ) ......69 二、 102 最常出現的引用字 ......71 三、 102 差易比較 ......71 第三項 各判決在不同技術領域中出現的頻率 ......72 一、 Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.1987) ......73 二、 Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.2005) ......74 三、 RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,1444,221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......75 四、 Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir.1999) ......76 五、 Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist DerrickCo., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......77 六、 Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ781,789(Fed.Cir.1983) ......78 七、 Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.2008) ......79 八、 Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed.Cir. 1991) ......80 九、 In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA1972) ......81 十、 Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383(Fed. Cir. 2001) ......82 第三項 主要逆轉理由分析 ......83 一、 非使發明所屬相關技藝中具通常知識者可立刻設想 ......83 二、 尚未證明存在表面上的預期(a prima facie case of anticipation) ......84 三、 須證明公開了請求項中所述之方法的每一項技術特徵 ......86 四、 審查委員進行了過於寬泛的解釋(overly broad interpretation) ......89 第四項 小結 ......90 第三節 第103條 非顯而易見性(Non‐obvious subject matter) ......91 第一項 非顯而易見性前50 大判決統計 ......91 一、 103 被PTAB 引用的判決前50 大 ......91 二、 103 最常出現的引用字 ......93 三、 103 差異比較 ......94 第二項 各判決在不同技術領域中出現的頻率 ......95 一、 KSR IntI Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ......96 二、 In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......97 三、 In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ......98 四、 In re Merck Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ......99 五、 In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ......100 六、 In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359,1364, (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......101 七、 In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ......102 八、 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ......103 九、 In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ......104 十、 In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ......105 第三項 主要逆轉理由分析 ......106 一、 審查委員錯誤的解釋申請專利範圍 ......106 二、 固有性的概念在應用於顯而易見性時必須受到限制 ......109 三、 審查委員未提出不具顯而易見性的初步證據 ......111 四、 經由分開的實施例將不同特徵組合起來不屬於顯而易見性 ......114 五、 發明的特徵不僅是設計選擇 ......116 六、 序言中是預期用途還是結構限制 ......117 第四項 小結 ......118 第四節 第112 條 明確性 (Indefiniteness) ......120 第一項 明確性前50大判決統計 ......124 一、 112 被PTAB引用的判決前50大 (1997-2020/02 ) ......124 二、 112 被PTAB引用的判決差異比較 ......126 三、 112 最常出現的引用字(2010-2020/02 ......126 第二項 各判決在不同技術領域中出現的頻率 ......127 一、 Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir.1991) ......128 二、 Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2010) ......129 三、 In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) ......130 四、 In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ......131 五、 In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA1976) ......132 六、 In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ......133 七、 In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) ......134 八、 Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565,1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 135 九、 In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......136 十、 Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed.Cir. 1997) ......137 第三項 主要逆轉理由分析 ......138 一、 附圖提供了書面說明的支持 ......138 二、 發明所屬領域通常知識者清楚其含義時即符合明確性 ......140 三、 眾所周知的結構不受手段功能性語言的解釋所約束 ......142 四、 不構成過度實驗 ......149 五、 治療性質專利的可據以實施性不一定需要人體實驗 ......153 第四項 小結 ......154 第四章 結論與研究建議 ......157 第一節 美國專利申請審查趨勢總結 ...... 157 第二節 案例研究總結 ......158 第一項 第101條 ......159 第二項 第102條 ......161 第三項 第103條 ......162 第四項 第112條 ......165 第三節 研究建議 ......169 表目錄 表一 本研究所使用或參考之資料源 (作者自製) ..................................................... 4 表二 2007-2017年主要國家發明專利核准率(作者自繪) ....................................... 14 表三 2007-2018台灣核准率(作者自繪) .................................................................. 14 表四 主要國家審查委員人力概況(作者自製) ......................................................... 18 表五 依技術領域細分後平均核准時間(月) (作者自繪) ......................................... 22 表六 核准率較高的前20大審查委員(作者自製) ................................................... 26 表七 核准率較低的前20大審查委員(作者自製) ................................................... 26 表八 核准/核駁原因依審查委員統計(作者自製) .................................................... 27 表九 核准/核駁原因上訴後的翻轉率(作者自製) .................................................... 28 表十 101 相關判決前50大(作者自製) ................................................................... 41 表十一 101 被PTAB引用的判決差異比較 (作者自製) ........................................ 43 表十二 101 最常出現的字(作者自製) ..................................................................... 43 表十三 102 被PTAB引用的判決前50大(作者自製) ............................................ 69 表十四 102 最常出現的引用字(作者自製) ............................................................. 71 表十五 102 引用判決差異比較 (作者自製)............................................................ 71 表十六 103 被PTAB引用的判決前50大(作者自製) ............................................ 91 表十七 103 最常出現的引用字(作者自製) ............................................................. 93 表十八 103 引用判決差異比較(作者自製) ............................................................. 94 表十九 112 被PTAB引用的判決前50 大(作者自製) .......................................... 124 表二十 112 被PTAB引用的判決差異比較(作者自製) ........................................ 126 表二十一 112 最常出現的引用字(作者自製) ........................................................ 126 圖目錄 圖一 本研究所討論之專利審查流程(部分) (作者自繪) ........................................... 7 圖二 2007-2018年主要國家發明專利申請數量 (作者自繪) ................................ 13 圖三 2007-2018年主要國家發明專利申請數量群組圖(作者自繪) ...................... 13 圖四 主要國家發明專利申請技術領域(作者自繪) ................................................. 17 圖五 主要國家審查委員人力增減趨勢(作者自繪) ................................................. 19 圖六 2000-2019年申請/核准/放棄數量圖(作者自繪) .......................................... 20 圖七 2000 年-2019年三種類型走勢圖(作者自繪) ............................................... 21 圖八 美國專利從申請到核准所需平均時間(月)(作者自繪) ............................. 21 圖九 美國專利從申請到收到第一次官方審定所需平均時間(月)(作者自繪) .. 23 圖十 2000-2019 PEDS資料集中之核准率(作者自繪) ............................................ 24 圖十一 2017-2019各技術領域之核准率(作者自繪) .............................................. 24 圖十二 2008-2019年核駁理由趨勢分析(作者自繪) .............................................. 25 圖十三 1990-2019核駁理由趨勢分析(作者自繪) .................................................. 28 圖十四 1990-2019核准/核駁原因上訴後的狀態(作者自繪) .................................. 29 圖十五 2019 年核准/核駁原因(101)上訴後核准數量(作者自繪) .......................... 29 圖十六 1997 到2019年三種決定數量趨勢(作者自繪) .......................................... 30 圖十七 2012-2020/2月三種決定結果佔比(作者自繪) ........................................... 31 圖十八 2012-2020/02 101 逆轉比例(作者自繪) ...................................................... 31 圖十九 PTAB - Appeal 流程圖 (USPTO 提供) ....................................................... 34 圖二十 101 在整體技術領域中出現的頻率(作者自繪) ..................................... 45 圖二十一 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l (作者自繪) ............................................... 46 圖二十二 Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs. (作者自繪) ................ 47 圖二十三 Bilski v. Kappas (作者自繪) ..................................................................... 48 圖二十四 Electric Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (作者自繪) ............................... 49 圖二十五 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp (作者自繪) .............................................. 51 圖二十六 Diamond v. Diehr (作者自繪) ................................................................... 52 圖二十七 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com (作者自繪) ....................................... 53 圖二十八 Parker v. Flook (作者自繪) ....................................................................... 54 圖二十九 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (作者自繪) ............................ 55 圖三十 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games (作者自繪) .................................... 56 圖三十一 102 在整體技術領域中出現的頻率(作者自繪) ..................................... 72 圖三十二 Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil (作者自繪) ......................................... 73 圖三十三 Perricone v. Medicis Pharm (作者自繪) ................................................... 74 圖三十四 RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems (作者自繪) .......................... 75 圖三十五 Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc. (作者自繪) .............................................. 76 圖三十六 Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist (作者自繪) ....... 77 圖三十七 Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (作者自繪) ........................................... 78 圖三十八 Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc. (作者自繪) ....................................... 79 圖三十九 Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto (作者自繪) .......................................... 80 圖四十 In re Arkley (作者自繪) ............................................................................ 81 圖四十一 Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co. (作者自繪) ............................. 82 圖四十二 103 在整體技術領域中出現的頻率(作者自繪) ..................................... 95 圖四十三 KSR IntI Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (作者自繪) .................................................. 96 圖四十四 In re Kahn (作者自繪) 97 圖四十五 In re Keller (作者自繪) ............................................................................. 98 圖四十六 In re Merck (作者自繪) ............................................................................ 99 圖四十七 In re Oetiker (作者自繪) ......................................................................... 100 圖四十八 In re American Academy of Science Tech Center (作者自繪) ................ 101 圖四十九 In re Warner (作者自繪) ......................................................................... 102 圖五十 In re Morris (作者自繪) .......................................................................... 103 圖五十一 In re Fine (作者自繪) 104 圖五十二 In re Schreiber (作者自繪)...................................................................... 105 圖五十三 112 在整體技術領域中出現的頻率(作者自繪) .................................... 127 圖五十四 Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar (作者自繪) .................................................. 128 圖五十五 Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly (作者自繪) ............................................ 129 圖五十六 In re Steele (作者自繪) ........................................................................... 130 圖五十七 In re Wands(作者自繪) ........................................................................... 131 圖五十八 In re Wertheim(作者自繪) ...................................................................... 132 圖五十九 In re Wright(作者自繪) ........................................................................... 133 圖六十 In re Moore(作者自繪) ........................................................................... 134 圖六十一 Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs(作者自繪) ............................ 135 圖六十二 In re Packard(作者自繪) ......................................................................... 136 圖六十三 Lockwood v. American Airlines(作者自繪) ............................................ 137 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 美國專利審查實務之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Study on Patent Prosecution of the United States | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李素華(Su-Hua LEE),宋皇志(Huang-Chih Sung) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 美國專利審查,PTAB,核駁理由,大數據,法律科技, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Patent Prosecution,PTAB,Reasons for Rejection,Bigdata,LegalTech, | en |
dc.relation.page | 179 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202001233 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-07-07 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 科際整合法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
Appears in Collections: | 科際整合法律學研究所 |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-0107202013345100.pdf Restricted Access | 3.3 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.